An article on the Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ website
responds to the AQA exam board’s proposals for a new A-level philosophy
specification. Under the title ‘Philosophy is not religion. It must not be
taught that way’ Charlie Duncan Saffrey raises major problems with the
changes. I agree with the thrust of his
argument which is the need to distinguish philosophy at A-level. The author has
taught the current specification and values its breadth and depth of engagement
with philosophy. He raises the problem of students with no interest in religion
being discouraged from pursuing an A-level in philosophy when half of the first
year is devoted to the philosophy of religion. He reveals that the AQA had
responded to his concerns by pointing out the difficulty of assessing students
studying the wide range of philosophical topics available with the current
specification. They have decided to select the most popular modules from the
current list and make them compulsory. I agree very much with the author’s contention
that if this approach were adopted with science A-levels it would not be
tolerated and the same standards should apply for philosophy.

The Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ website is famous for encouraging
comments and lively discussions beneath articles. There is a great deal of this
beneath Charlie Duncan Saffrey’s critical broadside against AQA’s plans to cut
down philosophy and emphasise areas it has in common with religious studies. This
shows a great deal of concern about the A-level and the value it has for people
who care about philosophy. A fair few of the comments do fall into a philosophy
v. religious studies dichotomy that doesn’t achieve very much. Superficial
criticisms of one discipline or the other are used to supposedly move things forward
by either claiming that philosophy must be ‘saved’ from being watered down and
undermined by its association with religious studies, or that religious studies
is more valuable because it does not privilege the ideas of certain great
individuals. There is a lot of criticism of religious studies in the name of
defending philosophy and, as some comments rightly point out, this is unfair and
unproductive. This false dialectic simply creates a slanging match between
those who value religion, or at least respect it, and those who see it as
dogmatic and unthinking. In fact both of these disciplines need the space to
develop and flourish at A-level, a flourishing that involves both students and
teachers in explorations of fascinating realms of thought. Their difference
should be celebrated through dedicated A-levels and not turned into a negative
opposition that gives rise to no positive relations of interdisciplinary
inquiry.

One comment is from someone who teaches both AQA A-level philosophy
and an A-level in religious studies. She explains that because they were
teaching religious ethics and religious philosophy as part of the religious
studies course at her school they chose to offer AQA philosophy with its choice
of modules in non-religious philosophy. This currently makes philosophy an
A-level that is sufficiently distinct from the A-level courses in religious
studies to be offered in the same school. She fears that students won’t be
allowed to study both A-levels if the proposed changes go ahead because of
their similar content. She teaches modules from the current AQA specification that
engage students and form vital parts of philosophy but which have been dropped
from the proposed specification. The comments are now closed on this piece. They
number 635 and include many important challenges to AQA’s proposals alongside
the more vitriolic jibes mentioned above that arise from animosity to
particular disciplines. I agree with
many participants in the discussion who are concerned that unless philosophy
stands out and clearly shows how unique it is, schools will be discouraged from
offering the A-level.

An article on the Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ website
responds to the AQA exam board’s proposals for a new A-level philosophy
specification. Under the title ‘Philosophy is not religion. It must not be
taught that way’ Charlie Duncan Saffrey raises major problems with the
changes. I agree with the thrust of his
argument which is the need to distinguish philosophy at A-level. The author has
taught the current specification and values its breadth and depth of engagement
with philosophy. He raises the problem of students with no interest in religion
being discouraged from pursuing an A-level in philosophy when half of the first
year is devoted to the philosophy of religion. He reveals that the AQA had
responded to his concerns by pointing out the difficulty of assessing students
studying the wide range of philosophical topics available with the current
specification. They have decided to select the most popular modules from the
current list and make them compulsory. I agree very much with the author’s contention
that if this approach were adopted with science A-levels it would not be
tolerated and the same standards should apply for philosophy.

The Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ website is famous for encouraging
comments and lively discussions beneath articles. There is a great deal of this
beneath Charlie Duncan Saffrey’s critical broadside against AQA’s plans to cut
down philosophy and emphasise areas it has in common with religious studies. This
shows a great deal of concern about the A-level and the value it has for people
who care about philosophy. A fair few of the comments do fall into a philosophy
v. religious studies dichotomy that doesn’t achieve very much. Superficial
criticisms of one discipline or the other are used to supposedly move things forward
by either claiming that philosophy must be ‘saved’ from being watered down and
undermined by its association with religious studies, or that religious studies
is more valuable because it does not privilege the ideas of certain great
individuals. There is a lot of criticism of religious studies in the name of
defending philosophy and, as some comments rightly point out, this is unfair and
unproductive. This false dialectic simply creates a slanging match between
those who value religion, or at least respect it, and those who see it as
dogmatic and unthinking. In fact both of these disciplines need the space to
develop and flourish at A-level, a flourishing that involves both students and
teachers in explorations of fascinating realms of thought. Their difference
should be celebrated through dedicated A-levels and not turned into a negative
opposition that gives rise to no positive relations of interdisciplinary
inquiry.

One comment is from someone who teaches both AQA A-level philosophy
and an A-level in religious studies. She explains that because they were
teaching religious ethics and religious philosophy as part of the religious
studies course at her school they chose to offer AQA philosophy with its choice
of modules in non-religious philosophy. This currently makes philosophy an
A-level that is sufficiently distinct from the A-level courses in religious
studies to be offered in the same school. She fears that students won’t be
allowed to study both A-levels if the proposed changes go ahead because of
their similar content. She teaches modules from the current AQA specification that
engage students and form vital parts of philosophy but which have been dropped
from the proposed specification. The comments are now closed on this piece. They
number 635 and include many important challenges to AQA’s proposals alongside
the more vitriolic jibes mentioned above that arise from animosity to
particular disciplines. I agree with
many participants in the discussion who are concerned that unless philosophy
stands out and clearly shows how unique it is, schools will be discouraged from
offering the A-level.